Genes and Gender

This headline today from BBC News. I have mixed feelings about scientific studies of gender non-conforming people. I secretly want them to prove that our gender identities are rooted in genetics. But I also don’t. Here’s why.

I would love to be able to justify to insurance companies that there is a legitimate need for treatment in gender non-conforming people who choose to seek treatment. It would make things less difficult for a large number of people who might be covered but can’t afford the actual treatments themselves.

On the other hand, I’m worried it will lead to a number of not-so-savory medical theories about “what should be done about those people.” If it’s a genetic problem, can’t we fix it? (I don’t need to be “fixed.”)

I think people are more inclined to be understanding of medical pathologies than the explanation “this is just the way I feel.” While I’m not saying it’s not true that that’s the way people feel — that’s just the way I feel — large numbers of people won’t just accept that at face value. Some responses I’ve gotten — “are you sure it isn’t just a phase?” and “what traumatic events might have led you to think this?”

On the other hand I’m worried science doesn’t want to leave room for gender non-conforming people who aren’t transsexual. The BBC article does only discuss transsexuals, and only male-to-female transsexuals at that. The vast majority of the reading public is not going to get that subtlety, let alone understand that just because there are transsexuals there are also many people who choose not to ascribe to one gender or another, and don’t want to change their sex.

I like the fact that these scientists are dealing with the issue non-judgmentally. They merely want to find out what the cause is. And that’s great.

How we benefit from science has largely to do with the scientists themselves, especially when it comes to biological matters. It seems to me, though, that there is a broader question on the minds of people who know people like me — why exist outside of the binary? Why insist on that? Maybe that’s not a question Western medicine is prepared to answer at the moment, or even prepared to ask. It’s kind of good that ground is being broken at all. What I wonder, though, is how the medical community is going to react to this information. Will there be studies done to refute it? At whose cost?

4 comments

I don’t think that you have much to worry about in finding any genetic markers.

First of all, people who don’t want treatment won’t be forced to have treatment. Just to give one example, take a mastectomy patient. Reconstructive surgery is very optional. It’s not forced.

Second of all, we’re not so far along yet where we can really “fix” genes. There’s no magic viral therapy to rewrite your genetics and force your body to then change according to those changed genes. It just isn’t done yet. And even if that could be done one day, again, see the first point. It’ll be optional, not required.

Where as ANY ability to convince insurance companies to actually cover a needed medical procedure (as some trans REALLY reach a point where they can’t function properly in society without psych therapy, hormone therapy, and possible eventual surgery) is a huge step forward.

I have to say I’m extremely sceptical when I hear about genetic links with anything to do with sexuality or transgender-type issues. Or anything you might call “human”. There used to be reports all the time about genes for this & that (homosexuality, violence in males, criminality, you name it). None of them very impressive. I haven’t followed the debate for years, however. Next time I’m on campus I’ll download the papers and see what I think.

The research the BBC were talking about is to be published in the January issue of Biological Psychiatry: Here‘s the prepublication abstract; here‘s the university’s press release. It’s supposed to be available online but I haven’t been able to find it.